Talk:Investigate (magazine)

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

"[links to the Exclusive Brethren] have been verified by police investigator Wayne Idour..." - huh? The reference doen't say this.

Air New Zealand Unsafe

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed this section from the article as we are describing only notable articles here. I could not find any sources to support the idea that that article had any impact on the world beyond the readers of Investigate magazine. If any such references do exist, please revert the deletion and add the references to the article's footnotes. BreathingMeat (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Peter Davis

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

He was in the October not September (2006) issue; and though it didn't actually say he was gay, the smoking gun issue was full of innuendo about the "Peter Davis mystery" and the "mystery" man; and asked for his identity and details of other "social contacts" of Davis or Clark Hugo999 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you have corrections, go ahead and boldly change the article! BreathingMeat (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Notable articles

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I've removed two more sections which were supported only by links to the magazine or closely associated material, or in one case, a press release from a minor opposing group. An article is only notable if the mainstream media picks up the issue and gives credit to Investigate as the source. There are other sections which might not be sufficiently supported by external references and can be removed.-gadfium 18:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was added back by BreathingMeat who says there are some sources in the Dominion Post. I didn't personally see any mention of this but I AGF that he's correct but I've fact tagged it so these sources can be added. I've also removed the follow up article. The fact the first article may have been notable doesn't mean the follow ups are. I've left in the bit about the allegations some people didn't actually read the article (which doesn't really surprise me) but removed the bit about the RAM. RAM are the ones who issues the press release we link to. Grant Morgan the letter writter's leanings are already discussed in his article. The RAM bit therefore wasn't any sort of revelation, that suggests it was some big secret. Nil Einne (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You need to be better informed. The notable original article was made even more notable by the follow-ups, particularly the Lashkar e Taiba connection. The incident made other newspapers and was raised in the NZ parliament: http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/47561

The significance of the TGIF Edition coverage was that Official Information Act documents confirmed the Minister and his department gave the all clear, despite never having translated the incriminating documentation.

Far from being irrelevant, it eclipses the significance of the RAM press release you have given more space to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.228.173 (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually I don't need to be anything. If you have sources, you are welcome to add them to the article. It's not my or anyone's responsibility to find sources because someone else added something without bothering to source them. Incidentally, the source you provided mentions the Investigate magazine article (which one it's referring to I don't know and don't care) but nothing about never translating documents or any relevance of that to the controversy. If you have some sources other then Investigate magazine which confirm that was of any relevance, then again you are welcome to use them to write a sourced section. If not, then again it's irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh lookie here [1]. I guess I'm now better informed then our anon friend (and yes that story is dated October 2007 i.e. about 1.5 years before our anon friend made his/her post... Sorry but when someone get's all worked up about people 'not being informed' and they themselves are far from informed I think it's acceptable to point that out. This story may indeed belong in the article, but not for the reasons our anon friend here appears to think. Basically it appears Investigate has disseminated highly negative claims (maybe even defamatory although that's my own POV and doesn't belong in the article) against someone primarily based on allegations from a disgruntled employer and his relatives which were later shown to be unsubstantiated or maybe even false. But to be honest, I've already waste too much time on Investigate magazine so I'll let someone else deal with it, if anyone cares. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Investigate (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic